There are more ways and channels than ever to get your message across—voice, print, radio, TV, mass media, social media. But a plethora of channels doesn’t necessarily mean that everyone has a chance to get their word out. No one is forbidden to write in your own diary, but it is increasingly difficult to get to the battlefield of opinions or the forum of ideas. Especially for those whose opinion diverges from the mainstream. So what is it that inhibits freedom of expression in a world of seemingly expanding possibilities?

Philosophy distinguishes between positive and negative freedom. Positive freedom gives opportunities for something, and negative freedom frees you from something. On the one hand, there should be opportunities, channels, and means to spread the message; on the other hand, there should be no bans, punishments, censorship, or other repressive measures to discourage it

The media is an extension and amplification of people’s minds. We can’t see far or hear well, but the media bring distant events within our reach and earshot. If we want to perceive an environment removed from our immediate environment, we must rely on mediated information. Media, in its various forms, allows us to experience distant places, foreign cultures and beautiful arts.

What media people watch or consume, however, is no longer so much up to them. On the one hand, a growing number of media and consumption patterns are becoming increasingly closely associated with the human mind. On the other hand, the difference is largely one of form, not substance. However, the content is influenced by the people who produce it—journalists, editors, directors, publishers, and media owners. People, with their backgrounds, tastes, ethics, values, interests, and the ideology that speaks to them. Unfortunately, to a greater or lesser extent, this is also reflected in their work.

It can be a piece of music or a blockbuster hit, but it can also be a newspaper editorial or a news bulletin – all of which carry an ideological tone. It remains natural and unnoticeable to those whose normality it fits or fits well with. It will, however, oppose those who have grown up under a different ideological aegis. Many, however, are somewhere in between, leaning one way or the other—so there is a move to extremes, with less and less plurality of opinion and fewer and fewer gray tones.

The concentration of media ownership has accelerated this process, as mainstream media consistently beat to a single drum and bring increasingly divided audiences into their camp. Freedom of expression, however, becomes increasingly limited for those whose convictions do not allow them to accept a world-view imposed on them day after day. The lack of media access and the complete taboo on specific topics prevent the public discussion of ‘other ideas.’ Echo chambers emerge where there is no reasoned debate between dissenters, beliefs fueled only by the energy of fellow thinkers. The debate no longer reveals the truth because dissenting opinions are not allowed into the chamber—at best, it is just a general caricature of an imaginary opposition being “beaten down” together.

Since such a minority is not given a voice in the media, the average person is left with the impression of a paucity of dissent and judges the rare occasions when dissenters get a moment of oxygen as aberrations, labels dissenters as lunatics and then is genuinely surprised when something shocking happens.

It is difficult for extremism to flourish in an environment of open communication and freedom of expression because if one does not fear for one’s well-being and reputation, ideas can be expressed and discussed in a supportive environment without the need to ‘spin’ them internally or to attach more extreme views within a narrow circle. A person would not go astray because, in an open discussion, they can continuously correct their misconceptions and thus neutralize any budding extremism.

The current system, whether deliberately designed or inadvertently developed, does not allow this. Media ownership is concentrated in the hands of conglomerates that control not only the news media but also the choice of films, TV series, music, and literature, and thus the amount and intensity of disseminated ideas. Such access to cross-media offers unprecedented opportunities to promote an appropriate worldview—be it indelible consumerism, Western gender roles, or, in a more positive vein, the promotion of tolerance and green thinking. Ownership relations influence the philosophy and ideology of publications and media, either directly or indirectly. Even if the owner doesn’t interfere in the daily choice of topics, and the only priority is to make ever bigger profits, this still has an impact on the topics that are covered and leaves out the door those that would hinder the money-making.

So we are in a vicious circle, where they don’t want to “mess around” with uncomfortable statements of opinion but push this minority into a narrower and narrower corner without giving them a voice, from which they then occasionally step out with unexpected actions, making everyone wonder “where did that come from?”.

While the Constitution does not really clip the wings of freedom of expression (negative freedom), it does not oblige the creation of a forum where all opinions can be heard without hindrance (positive freedom). This is why we have sunk deeper and deeper into a spiral of silence on the power of the free market economy to work. The most widely used media are themselves the channels that actually limit our (freedom of) expression.